Sunday, June 8, 2014

Teilhard-Style Conscious Evolution: The Vatican Shouldn't Be Too Hasty To Reject It

A question recently posed in a
piece on salon.com is: Are American nuns paying for the sins of a Jesuit priest
who died in the 1950s?

To support that contention the
article noted the ongoing showdown between doctrinal hard-liners in the Vatican
and leaders representing more than 40,000 U.S. nuns, with one of Rome’s chief
complaints being the nuns’ continuing embrace of the notion of “conscious
evolution."

Are you kidding me? What’s so
unique or odd aboutthat? Indeed, in
physics, the notion of consciousness resident in matter is becoming less
controversial by the minute. If it is resident or exhibits the potential in
matter, say neurons or other cells, then clearly evolution would be subsumed by
it.

The two physicists who’ve perhaps
done the most work in this area are Henry Stapp (‘Mind, Matter and Quantum
Mechanics’) and the late David Bohm (‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’)

Though Stapp and Bohm approach
nonlocality and consciousness from differing positions: Stapp via the Heisenberg Ontology applied
to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (CIQM), and Bohm via the
deterministic de Broglie wave concept in his Stochastic Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics (SIQM)both use the
Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle as a starting point.

In Bohm’s case, the Heisenberg
relations are embodied in his theory as a limiting case over a certain level
of intervals of space and time. However, the potential exists for the
fields to be averaged over smaller intervals and hence, subject to a greater
degree of self-determination than is consistent with the Heisenberg principle.
As Bohm concludes[1]:

From
this, it follows that our new theory is able to reproduce, in essence at least,
one of the essential features of the quantum theory, i.e. Heisenberg’s
principle, and yet have a different content in new levels

Bohm is primarily concerned with
the canonically conjugate field momentum, for which the associated coordinates,
i.e. Dt,Dfkfluctuate at random. Thus, we have, according to Bohm:

pk = a (Dfk/Dt)

Where k is a constant of proportionality, and Dfkis the fluctuation of the field coordinate.
If then the field fluctuates in a random way the region over which it
fluctuates is;

(dDfk)2= b (Dt)

Taking the square root of both sides yields:

(dDfk)= b 1/2(Dt)1/2

Bohm notes that pkalso fluctuates at random over the given
range so:

dpk =a b 1/2 /(Dt)1/2

Combining all the preceding results one finally gets a
relation reflective of the Heisenberg principle, but time independent:

dpk(dDfk) = ab

This is analogous to
Heisenberg’s principle, cf.

dp
dq<ħ

Where
the product abplays the same
role as ħ (The Planck constant divided by 2p)

The inference by Bohm

is that the universe is quantum wave mechanical at the most fundamental
level. What we call "cosmos" is the aggregate of all quantum wave forms in a
state of ongoing interaction, via the Bohmian quantum potential:

VQ={ - ħ2/ 2m}åi[Ñ Ri]2 / R

This means that the brain, in its current
evolutionary state, can interact quantum mechanically with any of the objects
in the cosmos. It also means that these objects must share in the conscious
attribute for said interaction to occur.It is nonlocality with a conscious ‘flavor’. (Or as Bohm has put it mind is unified with matter in a higher dimensional implicate order.)

This dynamic conforms to Stapp’s Heisenberg ontology form of
the CIQM, whereby an observational choice actualizes as a whole and
injects into the quantum universe an integrative aspect.[2].As Stapp describes it (‘The Mindful Universe’, p. 113):

“In this way the brain is
described strictly quantum –mechanically, yet it can be understood to be very
similar to a classical statistical ensemble…the relevance of the quantum
aspects of consciousness is not due to some macroscopic quantum superposition
effect- which would be extremely hard to realize. The pertinent feature is an
occasional sudden reduction of the ensemble to a sub-ensemble compatible with
the content of a co-occurring conscious experience.

The occurrences of such
reductions are logically possible because the state of the brain represents not
an evolving material substance but an evolving set of potentialities for a
psycho-physical event to occur.”

It is within these evolving
potentialities that evolving consciousness inheres, and they can reside as much
in inanimate matter as in viable matter, but obviously in a much more rudimentary guise in the former. While "conscious evolution" in its usually understood form refers to human advancement, it actually encompasses the explicate units throughout the cosmos - as well as other sentient beings in it.

Bohm, meanwhile, associates his
evolving consciousness with the Holomovement, a holographic entity that manifest
in a higher dimensional “implicate” order. Stapp describes his
effort as ‘bringing conscious realities into the description of nature”.

While QM obviously does not
‘prove’ material consciousness, the Bohmian –Stapp approach does provide a
scientific description (ok, conjecture) which is consistent with it. It is also
wholly naturalistic and hence trumps any supernaturalist approaches or
assumptions.

Carrying the Stapp and Bohm precepts and
principles to their logical conclusions, one arrives at a conscious cosmos, but with the consciousness emergent at differing levels if one accesses it at any one time.

The salon.com piece refers to Cardinal
Gerhard Mueller, head of the Vatican’s
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who basically views “conscious
evolution” as so much New Age twaddle. But if he had sufficient background in
quantum theory, at least to approach the Bohm, Stapp models, I warrant he would
lose that perception. Or at least give a good effort in trying to defend his
classical supernatural bunkum before he goes down.

Evidently, this German theologian
bluntly told heads of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious last month
that the principles of “conscious evolution” — that mankind is transforming
through the integration of science, spirituality and technology — are “opposed to Christian Revelation” and lead
to “fundamental
errors.”

Fundamental errors of what? In
what? The only error is made by Mueller who somehow thinks the cosmos can
remain canned within his little supernaturalist cartoon forever, with matter
and consciousness ultimately dualistically opposite. Now THERE is the real
error. It was indeed, the primary error that led me to embrace a hardcore, reductionist
atheism in which I totally eschewed the conscious component in favor of matter
(as "particles") ultimately determining reality. Time and experience have disclosed to me this
is gibberish, despite the fact I can’t set up an experiment to “prove” it.

The final joke is that Mueller
warned the sisters that if they persist in pursuing such dangerous ideas, Rome could cut them
loose. Hey, welcome it! I cut myself loose from the Vatican’s hard -headed morons and
haven’t regretted it yet. As I told my mom after I left the Church when she
asked for reasons: “It’s like a suit which I’ve outgrown. It no longer fits.”

The Church, let us bear in mind,
isn’t the final arbiter of truth. Despite its doctrine of papal infallibility,
Hans Kung has shown (‘Infallible?’, p. 142):" no one, neither Vatican I, nor Vatican II, nor the textbook theologians, has shown that the Church - its leadership or its theology - is able to put forward propositions which inherently cannot be erroneous."Hence, it ought not be earth-shaking that numerous errors can emerge in its assorted
doctrines – which - after all - are the products of limited conscious brains that
have fossilized as opposed to evolving their potentialities.

Let’s also bear in mind that the
very term “conscious evolution,” also leads directly back to Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin (1881-1955), a French Jesuit who was by turns a philosopher and
theologian, geologist and paleontologist. It was Teilhard’s thinking about
humanity’s future evolution that got him in trouble with church authorities. Teilhard’s principles as they apply
to the manifestation of the “Omega point”, synthesized from his book, ‘The
Divine Milieu’, can be stated as follows:

1. There is both a
within and a without of everything in theuniverse.

2. A law of
complexity/consciousness obtains by which increasingly complex structure
corresponds to increasing consciousness.

3. Evolution is
not merely due to pure chance but is directed.

4. Though the
universe appears constituted of diverse objects, it is fundamentally a unity.

Perhaps the best description of the
Omega Point is given in The Future of Man:[3]

...in the heart of a universe prolonged
along its axis of complexity, there exists a divine center of convergence. Let
us call it the point Omega. Let us suppose that from this universal center,
this Omega Point, there constantly emanate radiations hitherto only perceptible
to those persons we call 'mystics.' Let us further imagine that, as the
sensibility or response to mysticism of the human race increases with
planetisation, the awareness of Omega becomes so widespread as to warm the
Earth psychically while physically it is growing cold.

This
passage describes a unitary cosmos in metaphorical terms. The Omega Point
refers to the final grand unification of all explicate forms in the cosmos, i.e. into a
single implicate form, at the exhaustion of time. Ultimately, it represents a threefold synthesis:
the material world with consciousness, the past with the future, and variety with
unity.

Anyone who has read David Bohm’s ‘Wholeness and the Implicate
Order’ would immediately see the similarity between the Omega Point and
his Holomovement. The only difference, as Bohm would describe it if still
alive, is that the Holomovement already exists as a unified whole in present –
as well as future – reality.

Based on his principles, Teilhard
argued that creation is still evolving and that mankind is changing with
it.We are, he said, advancing in an
interactive “noosphere” of human thought through an evolutionary process that
leads inexorably toward an Omega Point – Jesus Christ — that is pulling all the
cosmos to itself.

Again, bear in mind Teilhard was
referencing the explicative process. This
is the evolutionary path divided matter would take, until such time it is
unified in the implicate order of higher dimensionality.

“Everything that rises must
converge,” as Teilhard put it, a phrase so evocative that Flannery O’Connor
appropriated it for her story collection. This process of “complexification” —
another of his signature terms — is intensifying and Catholic theology could
aid in that process if it, too, adapts. The trouble is, the fossils ensconced
in the Vatican
likely won’t allow it.

Though brief to the point of
flirting with superficiality, the above account shows why, as early as the
1920s, Teilhard’s Jesuit superiors barred him first from publishing ‘Divine
Milieu’ and then from teaching its principles. They effectively exiled him to China
to dig for fossils (which he did with great success).

Sadly, most of Teilhard’s works
(which I acquired while at Loyola in the 1960s) were not published until after his death, and
in 1962 a nervous Vatican
issued a formal warning about “the dangers presented by the works of Fr.
Teilhard de Chardin and his followers.”Hmmmm….funny then that the books would be offered for sale at a CatholicUniversity bookstore – but let’s bear in
mind Loyola was run by the Jesuits!

Today, remarkably, Teilhard is enjoying
something of a renaissance. Some might attribute this to New Age piffle or
seeking, but I think it’s because people simply aren’t satisfied any more with
ersatz or dictated belief that they’re obliged to imbibe. They want to explore
the universe- spiritually and in other ways – for themselves.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, for
example, who as a young theologian named Joseph Ratzinger criticized Teilhard’s
views, a few years ago praised Teilhard’s “great vision” of the cosmos as a
“living host.” That raised a few eyebrows and prompted Benedict’s spokesman
(does every pope have one?) to clarify that “by now, no one would dream of
saying that (Teilhard) is a heterodox author who shouldn’t be studied.” Hmmm…really?

Pope Francis has also invoked
Teilhard-sounding concepts about the ongoing development of human
consciousness, and Vatican observers say it
would not be surprising if Teilhard made an appearance in an encyclical on the
environment that Francis is currently writing.

According to Rev. Paul Crowley, a
Jesuit at Santa ClaraUniversity who has studied
Teilhard:

“Teilhard is definitely being
quoted or invoked in ways we haven’t seen in decades, and really never before
by the Roman magisterium,”

Crowley said one reason for the
reconsideration is that reality caught up with Teilhard’s ideas: The growing
global ecological crisis is prompting demands for the kind of holistic
scientific and moral response Teilhard would have endorsed, and the Internet is
itself a digital “noosphere” of universal interconnectivity.

Again, quantum physics via
nonlocality and specifically the (1982) Aspect experiment, has driven this recognition as well. (At
least the quantum physics of Bohm and Stapp)

At the same time, scholars such as
David Grummett and Sister Elizabeth Johnson have been honing and deploying
Teilhard’s often arcane ideas, and the American Teilhard Association has an
agenda busy with conferences and publications. It is “the emergence of Teilhard
de Chardin,” as John Haught titled a 2009 essay in Commonweal magazine.

There’s even a major documentary on
Teilhard in the works, with a blurb from NPR’s Cokie Roberts: “Bringing
Teilhard de Chardin alive to another generation could not come at a more
opportune time.”

So how is it that the American nuns
are getting tripped up by Teilhard just as Teilhard is becoming cool again? The problem is, as Crowley put it, that for every serious
Teilhard scholar “there are nine New Age types who invoke Teilhard’s name” —
and often botch the pronunciation.

Granted, as the salon.com piece put it, Teilhard "remains his own
worst enemy". He was as much mystic as scientist, and his concepts could be so
idiosyncratic and abstract as well as esoteric, that they fed right into the
ecology-and-spirituality movement that emerged in the 1970s and beyond.
In some quarters, yes, Teilhard tends to be quoted by the Left the way G.K. Chesterton is cited by the
Right — frequently and to great effect, but often torn from any meaningful
context. The enhancement and power of the internet, for example, is not the same as the emergent noosphere. Neither is "planetisation" a simple ecological concept or associated with "Gaia". Most of those who make such errors have never really read Telhard's works carefully.

To be sure, Teilhard’s disciples,
including author and lecturer Barbara Marx Hubbard, whose invitation to address
the American nuns in 2012 continues to irk some in Rome, helped keep his legacy alive.

But at this point the Catholic
Church may need to take Teilhard more seriously if it is to take him back from
his fan base outside traditional religion.

According to Crowley:

“What we need to do is to separate the gold
from the dross and appropriate it in new ways.”

The problem is, who exactly is
qualified to make those decisions? One thing for sure, it can't be left to the fossilized brains in the Curia, or the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"!

About Me

Specialized in space physics and solar physics, developed first astronomy curriculum for Caribbean secondary schools, has written thirteen books - the most recent:Fundamentals of Solar Physics. Also: Modern Physics: Notes, Problems and Solutions;:'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God', Astronomy & Astrophysics: Notes, Problems and Solutions', 'Physics Notes for Advanced Level&#39, Mathematical Excursions in Brane Space, Selected Analyses in Solar Flare Plasma Dynamics; and 'A History of Caribbean Secondary School Astronomy'. It details the background to my development and implementation of the first ever astronomy curriculum for secondary schools in the Caribbean.